TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure

61 pointsby elemenoalmost 6 years ago

15 comments

kmncalmost 6 years ago
I played the game a lot, before giving up. I played only draft and was pretty good (Mostly infinite and highly ranked).<p>I have two opinions on why the game failed. First, while it was a truly satisfying game and wonderfully complex the random elements where both anti Dota and truly fuck you rng where a flip of a coin decides most high level games. Now, the same could be said about most competitive card games but in Artifact it was so visible, felt terrible, and had no ways to play around it. Hearthstone has learned that good rng is about having a range of bad medium to good results. In Artifact it was as either game losing or game winning, every time. Terrible design and in my opinion the game could of removed all rng entirely and it would of been an amazing niche competitive game. The problem though is, the ranking system, tournaments, and pay to play economy made competitive play boring with no rewards. I am not exaggerating when I say the game would of not been a failure if it had a solid visible Elo ranking system.<p>Second opinion: the entire design philosophy was a failure from day one. Dota has over 100 heros. Imagine a hearthstone style game were on day one you had 100 heroes to choose from, each with their own cards added to your deck and having four skills (like hero powers in hearthstone). Games remain fast while still being complex and keeping the spirit of Dota (100s of options). I believe valve has no clue what their audience wants.
评论 #20370976 未加载
评论 #20371025 未加载
DanHultonalmost 6 years ago
If the price was the only problem, you&#x27;d still expect to see people playing draft regularly, at least in the interim, especially since there are free drafts you can play. But there&#x27;s more wrong with this game than just how they priced it.<p>It may be that RNG is actually less of a factor in Artifact than in other similar games, but boy does it FEEL stronger. Every turn in a CCG lets you draw cards, and maybe you don&#x27;t get the card you need, but maybe your opponent didn&#x27;t also, you don&#x27;t know, but instantly. But in Artifact, every turn drops creeps in the lanes for both you and your opponent, so you can instantly see if RNG has blessed you or cursed you.<p>It doesn&#x27;t even feel great to win when RNG is on your side sometimes. Your opponent has built a huge bruiser in an early lane that will just demolish you there and win the game, except a creep spawns in front of him, blocking all that damage. I mean, I didn&#x27;t do that, that was just luck. I didn&#x27;t make a good play or build a good deck to get that one extra turn, I just got lucky with creep spawns.<p>Sure, there&#x27;s definitely more around it that got me to that point where I <i>could</i> get lucky, I understand that, but that other work doesn&#x27;t feel emphasized, the last-second luck does.<p>And the biggest failure of the Artifact team isn&#x27;t in the design of this, it&#x27;s the hubris of not listening to the players complaining about it. It doesn&#x27;t matter if you build the fairest CCG in the land, if it feels like swingy garbage, nobody&#x27;s going to play it and it&#x27;s going to fail. Standing above in their white tower, yelling down &quot;but the math says you&#x27;re wrong&quot; doesn&#x27;t matter if nobody&#x27;s having any fun.
评论 #20371148 未加载
评论 #20370950 未加载
评论 #20371010 未加载
Chazprimealmost 6 years ago
Commercial failure, perhaps. I&#x27;d suggest not delivering <i>Half Life 3</i> (or even <i>HL2: Episode 3</i>) is their biggest failing. All the resources in the world, and they&#x27;re happy resting on their laurels. It&#x27;s such a shame.
评论 #20371392 未加载
评论 #20371075 未加载
评论 #20371258 未加载
评论 #20371439 未加载
评论 #20371067 未加载
ggregoirealmost 6 years ago
No the biggest issue wasn&#x27;t the pricing structure.<p>Artifact was just not fun at all.<p>I&#x27;ve been playing a ton of MTG, HS, Gwent, MTGA, bought Artifact, played 5 hours, never touched the game again.<p>It&#x27;s overengineered, unnecessary complex, too slow, too long, too random and at the end exhausting, frustrating and not that interesting.<p>Most people played one or two games of Artifact a day then moved too something else.
评论 #20371609 未加载
Fuccboi88almost 6 years ago
For me (and I think for most people) this quote from the article summed up why I did not play Artifact:<p>&quot;However, it seems the biggest issue for Artifact was the pricing structure. First off you had to drop £15.99 to just buy the game, which would give you two starter decks and 10 bonus packs of cards. If you then wanted to get more cards, which would have been necessary if you wanted to build a top level deck unless you got incredibly lucky, you would either have to buy more packs at £1.49, win them in the game modes that require a ticket, which cost £3.75 for a pack of five, to enter, or simply buy the cards from the Steam Marketplace.<p>But the rarity of the strongest cards such as Axe, &quot;a card you needed in 80 per cent of competitive decks,&quot; according to Swim, meant prices shot up. Within two days of launch a single Axe already cost more than the game itself. It felt like you had to put down a lot of money if you wanted to play with a competitive deck in the most competitive modes in the early days.&quot;
aranelsurionalmost 6 years ago
For me, their business model was the biggest turn-off, I didn&#x27;t even give it a try because of that.<p>Hearthstone is already strong in this market, they have $0 entry fee and only charge for the cards. It&#x27;s a pay2win game, some like&#x2F;accept it, and some don&#x27;t. I don&#x27;t. Because I&#x27;m not willing to pay some unknown amount of money for a game just to stay competitive everytime the meta changes. I play games for fun, and being destroyed in a game because of IRL money is no fun.<p>Now what I would consider as a strong alternative to Hearthstone, would be a game asking for a triple-A entry fee, and then charging nothing extra. In this game everyone would have the same chances, and nobody would have to feel bad just because they didn&#x27;t invest enough money in a gambling scheme.<p>What Valve offered is a triple-A entry fee, and then charging for anything they can. Now how is this can ever be a good offer? I don&#x27;t know. I simply ignored the game and moved on.
评论 #20382729 未加载
Moxdialmost 6 years ago
I think they did the initial business model wrong, they should&#x27;ve started like hearthstone did, a totally free game with free cards, and the possibility to earn more free cards, and add the steam market later on or control the value early so it doesn&#x27;t shoots up
drngddsalmost 6 years ago
Responding to complaints about RNG by saying &quot;actually our data shows that it&#x27;s fair&quot; is totally missing the point. People don&#x27;t like that the game <i>feels</i> too luck-based, whether or not it actually is.
评论 #20371097 未加载
doctorpanglossalmost 6 years ago
They tripled down on the worst part of card games, paying to win.
评论 #20372995 未加载
评论 #20370979 未加载
overcastalmost 6 years ago
I mean, this is exactly how card games work. People don&#x27;t seem to have an issue buying into expensive Magic decks. You don&#x27;t NEED to have the best though, no shame in drafting and pauper decks.
评论 #20370479 未加载
评论 #20371071 未加载
评论 #20370999 未加载
jdolineralmost 6 years ago
I tried Artifact for a little while but got really into this other card game called Prismata around the same time. I suspect artifact would have done a lot better 5 years ago, when there weren&#x27;t so many digital trading card games. Valve should have stuck to what they do best, which is waiting for people to make cool mods of their games and then buying &#x2F; remaking them. Fortunately they seem to have wound up doing that anyways with Underlords.
vasili111almost 6 years ago
Price! People are not ready anymore to pay lot of money for one game. HearthStone which also needs lots of money in order to be competitive is also on decline. Just look at the twitch view counts (which indirectly indicates game popularity). 1-2 years ago HearthStone was at 2-4 position now usually it is at &gt;15 position. People do not like that kind of monetization scheme any more.
michelbalmost 6 years ago
I&#x27;d say not capitalising on one of their greatest games is another huge failure as well..(HL3)
评论 #20370380 未加载
评论 #20370723 未加载
评论 #20370905 未加载
评论 #20370371 未加载
jccalhounalmost 6 years ago
Pricing may have been a part of it but what did it for me was that it looks really complicated. I haven&#x27;t played it so maybe it isn&#x27;t but I am sure that just looking complicated kept a lot of people like me away from it.
benbristowalmost 6 years ago
Nobody asked for a Valve card game.<p>We&#x27;re all waiting for a &#x27;3&#x27; of any of their franchises.
评论 #20371115 未加载
评论 #20370582 未加载